Easier to tear down than build up
Published Thu, Oct 9 2008 10:05 AM
Negative campaigning is easy, all you have to do is dig up dirt about your opponent. That shouldn't be too hard because we're all only human and humans are flawed creatures. If you can't find any dirt, make some up. As long as it sounds likely, some people will believe it. Besides, often in politics its the seriousness of the charge rather than the nature of the evidence that matters.
If you don't want to engage in mudslinging, there are still other ways to engage in negative campaigning that are easier than running a positive campaign. Examine the record of your opponent and use it against him or her. This works too, if you know how to spin things. After all, your opponent voted against measures that you and your likely constituents support right? If they don't have enough of a record to attack, attack their lack of experience.
I don't like negative campaigning. I'm never thrilled by attack ads run by a candidates campaign. As I've indicated in a few posts recently, I'd much rather have someone tell me why I should vote FOR a candidate as opposed to voting AGAINST another candidate. I've offered up the challenge to friends, coworkers, and other bloggers and NO ONE has risen to it.
I think I know why. One reason is, it's not easy to come up with a persuasive argument why someone should vote FOR someone. Another, is because I said I don't want platitudes or bumper sticker arguments. One of my coworkers came up with yet another a couple of days ago — it's why he hasn't responded, when he knows that he's one of the people the challenge was specifically directed at. When you know that there's going to be a discussion of the merits of your reasons to vote FOR someone, you know that the responses are going to be reasons to vote AGAINST that someone. Fear that those arguments will overwhelm your arguments can be discouraging.
Shouldn't we consider those arguments though? Shouldn't we look at why we want to vote FOR a candidate when we're choosing one? Shouldn't we feel confident enough in our choice and our reasoning that we're willing to defend that choice against people that hold different views? If we can't, then why are we going to vote the way we're going to anyway?
Are we all Kool-aid drinkers?
So… Here are a few reasons why I'm going to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. This isn't an exhaustive list, but it's a start. I know that there are arguments against these reasons and that some of these reasons might strain credulity a bit (especially in view of my opinions about some of the support for them). I hope to see your counter arguments in reply. Even more though, I'd like to see YOUR arguments for YOUR candidates.
- John McCain is a man of character. He has served his country in the military and in politics for many years. He has served honorably. When he was a prisoner of the Vietnamese he was offered the opportunity to be sent home. He refused in support of his fellow prisoners, and for that he suffered.
- John McCain understands what it is to be tortured. He was tortured in Vietnam. He was broken by his torturers, and yet his fellow prisoners helped him to regain his dignity and honor. He knows his weaknesses and his strengths, and he knows the value of friendship in overcoming adversity.
- John McCain understands that you don't win a war by surrendering. He understands that the only way to truly win a war is through victory. Defeat your enemies or they will come back to do harm to you another day.
- John McCain is a reformer. He fights against corruption in our federal government and in politics. Say what you will about the unconstitutionality of McCain-Feingold (and there is much to be said about it), John McCain sponsored it and pushed for it to fight the corrupting influence of money in politics.
- John McCain is a reformer. He fights against earmarks or pork-barrel spending in Congress. Yes, I know that earmarks account for only a tiny percentage of our federal budget, and it might seem like tilting at windmills, but pork-barrel spending is to politicians like Marijuana is to rebellious youth. It's a gateway drug to even more serious addictions. For politicians pork-barrel spending is the gateway to even more big-government spending. It's a corrupting influence in other ways too, corrupting the electorate. Getting money for your State from the federal budget seems like a good thing — until you realize that the money may have been taken from your State in the first place and that you're getting less back than was taken when you consider the middle man.
- John McCain is a truly compassionate man. If he isn't, he supports his wife's compassion at the least. His family has adopted children from terrible circumstances and given them love and support. That's above reproach — especially when he doesn't talk much about it. Compassion has more meaning when it's not merely for public display.
- John McCain is a bipartisan candidate. He's been known to reach out to Democrats and seek compromise on many occasions, even when it has hurt his own party. Rather than staking out the most extreme positions in controversies over such things as judicial confirmation, he sought ways to avoid the potential consequences of turning the “nuclear option” against his party when majorities turned the other way.
- Sarah Palin has executive experience. Being a mayor was all the qualification Rudy Giuliani needed when he ran for the Republican Presidential nomination. Sarah Palin was a well liked mayor. Being a governor is an excellent qualification. Most of our better Presidents have been governors rather than rising up through Congress or the Senate. As a governor, Sarah Palin is the commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard. Should, God forbid, the worst happen to John McCain and he die in office, Sarah Palin would be ready on day one to step in as commander in chief.
- Sarah Palin is a reformer. She fought against corruption in her own party, and ran against a sitting governor, both for her party's nomination and for election — and won. She fought crony capitalism in the State of Alaska, fighting against “big oil” and sweetheart deals over the pipeline. She ousted the Public Safety Commissioner over insubordination on budget matters.
Now I know that there are plenty of reasons NOT to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. I also know that these are not the strongest of reasons to vote FOR them either. I expect argument, and I expect that some of my reasons FOR these two candidates might be used as reasons AGAINST them by their opponents (and even their supporters).
What you should note here though is I have not said a single word AGAINST Barack Obama and Joe Biden in this post. I have not attacked their character. I have not attacked their records. I have not even attacked their policies. That's easy to do. Just as I'm sure that John McCain and Sarah Palin's opponents can find it easy to do the same with them.
My challenge still stands. If you support Barack Obama and Joe Biden — and I know many of you do, especially where I work — Tell me WHY you SUPPORT them. Don't be afraid — unless you're just drinking the Kool-aid.
I'm not.
It's easy to tear down your opponents. Can you build your side up instead?
This linkfest is for the 9th of October, 2008. If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback. Just remember the trackback policy.
For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1255
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/10/9/1255.aspx
Mark My Words trackbacked with "To be or not to be messianic"
If you've received spam emails claiming that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, have no fear, Louis Farrakhan shoots that notion down. ...
Adam's Blog trackbacked with "Rotten Nuts"
Podcast Show Notes
ACORN’s Voter fraud under the Microscope.
Multiple registrations for the same people in New York State. (Hat Tip: Campaign Spot.)
More from Missouri…Connecticutt…Wisconsin…Indiana (including 105% voter regist...
Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with "ACORN: The little nut that grew into the mighty fraud tree"
The name of ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is familiar here in Washington. While Nevada and other states are getting to know them and their fraudulent voter registration activities, we here in Washington already...
Tel-Chai Nation trackbacked with "What does Barack Obama know about ACORN's fraud?"
Following the end of Yom Kippur, I tuned into FOX and saw a report about ACORN, a left-wing organization, being investigated for voter fraud. Investor's Business Daily (via Hot Air) has some more info on this group, which Obama, who worked for one of...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "Laughable Lefty Loon Leftards"
Could I have fit another word starting with “L”?
Olbermann’s brother Maddow along with his sister Blumenthal are really desperate to attempt a counter to the stink cloud surrounding Hussein. Epic fail.
Max and Dave:
But whethe...
Pirate's Cove trackbacked with "Confirmation On Barack Obama’s Iraq Agreement Medling"
Hmm, I wonder if the rest of the Credentialed Media will cover this story of an obvious Logan Act violation, which goes much, much more in to detail then the original New York post editorial by Amir Taheri (visit Wizbang and Hot Air for some of the ori...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "OMG Gov. Palin Fired A Cop"
That damned Sarah Palin, so abusive…
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - An Alaska ethics inquiry found that Gov. Sarah Palin, the U.S. Republican vice presidential candidate, abused the power of her office by dismissing the state’s public safet...
Mark My Words trackbacked with "Sarah Palin and abuse of power"
Headlines matter and because they do, we have a responsibility to not rely merely on what screaming banners in bold font and colors try to proclaim. ...
Mark My Words trackbacked with "Obama's first 100 days in office includes ACORN"
Actually, he said this would occur during the transition, before his first 100 days and even the inauguration. ...
Mark My Words trackbacked with "Barack Obama and the Chicago way"
This isn't about the quote by Sean Connery's character in The Untouchables. Instead, it's John Kass of the Chicago Tribune newspaper addressing the Bill Ayers, Barack Obama connection, and Chicago machine politics. ...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "On This Day Of Rest, Let Us Praise “The One”"
Or, “Sunday Morning Puke Fest”…
Donna Owens at the Baltimore Sun asks six people what Obama means to them. Grab your bucket, its about to get nauseating.
Vicky Johnson, Gwynn Oak
PERSONAL: 40-year-old married mother of one
PROFESSI...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "I Did Not Have Sex With ACORN"
Or something like that infamous Bill Clinton line.
NY Post - O’jahnae Smith is ready and registered to vote this November.
There’s only one problem: She’s 7 years old.
The Connecticut girl is 11 years too young - and nobody in her fa...
Right Voices trackbacked with "An Affair To Remember Obama? Who is Vera Baker? Why Doesn’t Michelle Like Her?"
Who is Vera Baker?
Some people in Chicago claim she was Obama’s Finance Director for his 2004 Senate campaign. FEC Senate campaign records show she was paid a pretty penny as “Finance Director”.
However, people familiar with Obama’s 2004 Senate campai...
Blog @ MoreWhat.com trackbacked with "Will Rezko Mean Jail Time for Obama?"
…with sentencing for Tony Rezko being in his immediate future, ’singing’ to the FEDS about a ‘family’ in Chicago as well as Illinois’s Governor Blagojevich and Senator Barack Obama and a bank in Chcago with ‘po...
Woman Honor Thyself trackbacked with "Liberals in New York City"
My city this past Sunday.
A Muzlim parade..whaddya know.
On Madison Ave.
...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "The Good Old Days"
Take a moment and reflect…
I know I goof around a lot, but every now and again its time to take a moment and remember what our Nation, our Republic, our Society used to be. G-D help us in not making it any worse.
by MareMule
We often hear from...
The Virtuous Republic trackbacked with "The RNC Commericial that Should Be Running"
I took this YouTube video (thanks to the original author for doing all the hard work) and simply added two seconds of video and sound to the beginning and the end.
Obama sat in the pews for of TUCC for 20 years. Remember this little gem from Obama...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "Blog Talk Radio Censorship"
Who needs the Fairness Doctrine when you can just start pulling plugs?
Tracy at No Compromise When It Comes To Being Right has had the plug pulled on her Blog Talk Radio show. Why? Because she dared speak out against The One.
Yesterday I had attor...
walls of the city trackbacked with "at least he admits it"
Straight from Senator Barack Hussein Obama's mouth: It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. ... I think that...
third world county trackbacked with "Who Are You Voting FOR?"
…almost every time I hear a politician speak my B.S. meter pegs out, and that can’t be a good thing…. Politicians *spit*. Can’t live with ‘em; can’t live with ‘em. I’d be happy to live without ‘em.
...
Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with "So Democrats…do you even know *why* you are voting for Obama?"
The people in this audio clip certainly did not.
Howard Stern was curious about the question no one likes to ask: Will black vote for Obama just because he is black?
So into the field in Harlem he sent a guy with a microphone to ask blacks if they vo...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "Michelle Obama’s “API” Phone Call"
The Obama citizenship drama continues…
Texas Darlin’ has an article up titled, “*Breaking* Did Michelle Confirm Barack is Indonesian? [Update]“
According to African Press International, Michelle Obama called API to complain ab...
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Thinh Tran responded with:
 | Prior to reading this post and actually committed my time to reading more about my choice, what I've always considered as valid reasoning for voting was to vote for the "least worst" candidate. I've only now realized that I didn't know of ANY positive robust evidence to back my candidate. For quite a few of the younger generation voters such as myself, I believe that's how it typically runs. I blame it on society - but that's a whole other topic. |
Perri Nelson responded with: Educate yourself!
 | Educate yourself. Why you're voting for someone matters. Yes, there's the notion of the lesser of two evils to be considered, and that certainly applies in this election as well, but it's not really a good reason to vote. Choosing a candidate, and backing that candidate in conversation is too important to leave the choice to ignorance. To my way of thinking, this has nothing to do with society. It's intellectual laziness, but I don't mean that to be insulting to you. It's a malady that afflicts the majority of the electorate. |
Perri Nelson responded with: Veracity
 | One more thing. Question everything. Everyone that writes anything has a personal bias. It's really easy to succumb to that bias, especially if you happen to agree with or respect the person making the statements. And never take a candidate's word for anything, whether it's what a candidate says about him/herself, or what a candidate says about his/her opponent. After all, isn't “Politicians Lie” a truism with some actual truth in it? Don't take anything that anyone tells you for granted. Find another source to back it up, or to refute it. |
Layla responded with:
 | Great post Perri. You covered every point possible and I thoroughly believe these points needed to be made.
However, getting the Kool-Aid drinkers on board is a whole other matter. Maybe we should call them kook-aids. |
Dan Trabue responded with:
 | 1. Obama is a man of character. He and his wife have worked with and for the "least of these" for years.
2. Obama has great experience in his community organizing years. They taught him the importance of grass roots, bottom-up democracy.
3. Obama is not a "bought" man. Because of his great organizational skills, Obama's financial support comes from millions of small donors - just regular people, not a wealthy and powerful few, who then expect favors.
4. Obama realizes you can't win a war by invading the wrong country. Obama recognizes that Iraq was a mistake and we need to end that mistake as soon as possible. One does not make mistakes better by prolonging the mistake, one makes it better by acknowledging it as a horrible mistake and working to end it with honor.
5. Obama recognizes the value of organizing at an international level as well as the national level. There are a host of challenges that face our nation that will require international cooperation. This will require a leader who is not perceived to be a rogue power. Obama is respected internationally and that is a good thing.
6. Obama is inspirational. We need a leader who can inspire and this, Obama can do. We face tough challenges that will require sacrifice and commitment from the US and the world, Obama has the smarts and skills to inspire such sacrifice and commitment.
7. Obama recognizes the desperate need to become energy independent and has a plan to do so in ten years. That's been WAY too long in coming. It's a matter of national security.
8. Obama has energized our Republic. People are turning out in record numbers for this election and that is an amazing thing.
Obama is certainly not a perfect man or candidate, no one is. He is somewhat inexperienced. He will need to surround himself with wise advisers, but that, too, is a good thing.
Obama has been somewhat divisive - or at least, he has found himself running for this office in divisive times. He will be faced with the challenge of pulling an at times divided nation together and that's going to be a tough thing for whoever is elected.
Let's keep our leaders in our thoughts and prayers and always hold them accountable. |
Perri Nelson responded with:
| Thank you Dan, That's exactly what I wanted from the opposition. Now I think we have something worth examining and discussing. The original challenge was to send it to me in email, but the comments will do. The reason for email was so that I could publish it both here and on my other blogs to open discussion. It's up to you though, since you chose comments. Should we elevate this to a full post on this and my other blogs, or just discuss it here? |
Marshall Art responded with:
 | I must recuse myself from this challenge because I AM voting for him to block the election of the "man of character". I say this, however, with full agreement of every point you've made, yet, it still stands that though he's head and shoulders the superior choice, it's still only by default.
But I did want clarification as far as to your terms. To call Barry O a "man of character" is extremely subjective, even if the worshipper truly believes. Shouldn't there by something by which one could easily prove? Your McCain statements are followed with something that is plain to see and easily verifiable. Dan's points don't come anywhere close to the standard you've set. If that's OK by you, it's just fine with me. |
Perri Nelson responded with: Standards and Verifiability
| Well Marshall, I'm familiar with the quality of Dan's arguments from another blog he frequents. Yes, his arguments are indeed subjective, but getting a baseline from which to continue discussion is the goal. I don't intend to let Dan's assertions stand on their own, and I intend to answer them. I expect no less for my own from him. For example, I suppose we could begin with his point number 3. The claim that Obama isn't a “bought” man rings hollow to me. After all, we know for a fact that he received more money from Fannie May and Freddie Mac in his short time in the Senate than any other Senator during the same time period. The amount of money he received put him at either number two, or number three on their all time lobbying money recipients list. It might be instructive to examine his votes on oversight reform legislation proposed during that time frame. Yes, I hope for something more substantive, from both sides. For example, I'd like the discussion to examine the proposed policy initiatives from both candidates. And I would like more backing (from Dan's side) for what Dan has had to say so far. Mostly, what we have is very weak support for either candidate. |
Dan Trabue responded with:
| Well, hang on there fellas. You provided some examples and I followed in your path - not going on and on, but providing points why I support Obama (for instance - character) and a supporting statement as to why I think that (their family has worked for and with the least of these for years).
This is not different than your example of your point of why you support McCain (character) and your supporting statement (he served honorably in the military and when he was captured).
What's the difference? I modeled my answers on yours. I did try to be brief, out of politeness - I generally try to avoid excessively long answers on blogs. Still, my answers have as much depth as yours. Now, we could begin discussing the merits of our respective arguments (what of the fact that he left a disfigured wife to have an affair and then marry a younger trophy wife? - that does not speak well of his character.) |
Dan Trabue responded with:
| As to your subjective response to my number three:
The claim that Obama isn't a “bought” man rings hollow to me. After all, we know for a fact that he received more money from Fannie May and Freddie Mac in his short time in the Senate than any other Senator during the same time period.
1. I believe that Obama was SECOND on that list of how much Senators received from FMFM, not the most.
2. He received, if I'm not mistaken $126,000. Obama has raised HUNDREDS of millions of dollars mostly from Joe Sixpacks and soccer moms and janitors and carpenters and, etc, etc, etc. The point is, that $126,000 is a drop in the bucket and doubtful that it would buy any special privileges.
3. We must always keep an eye on who is supporting candidates and in what amounts - money has a great potential to corrupt the system. However, this is why I listed not being a "bought" man as one of his qualities. Obama's method of fund-raising (MANY small donors from across the spectrum of America as opposed to a few large donors) is a Plus when considering who to vote for. |
Perri Nelson responded with:
| Dan, Yes, you did follow in my example. You did not however give supporting arguments for each of them. It's not required, but it does help to support your point. You didn't expect a discussion on your reasons to vote for Barack Obama and my reasons to vote for John McCain to not include an analysis of those reasons did you?
I do believe I did say that he was second or third on the all-time recipients list. But in the space of his two yeara, of his first term as Senator, which he said he would complete without running for President, he received more than any other Senator in the same period of time. That's not subjective, it's objective. As for his donations - How about the several million dollars in foreign donations, some of which are known to come from foreign citizens. Under current law, that's illegal. Further, while much of his money does come from small donors, not all of it does. There are still very large contributions from the likes of George Soros, and many in Hollywood. As to your point regarding McCain's first wife... I'll concede that one. Personally, I find divorce distasteful for nearly all reasons. The only acceptable reasons for a divorce as far as I am concerned are infidelity (in your spouse) and domestic abuse (by your spouse). If the reason for John McCain's was as you stated, I find it a mark against his honor. On the other hand, recall that we are all flawed creatures and make mistakes. People do change, and a man's behavior after such an incident is as much a mark of character as the behavior before it. John McCain's public life has been exemplary since. Still, I'll have to look more deeply into his divorce to see how much of a stain on his honor it truly is. |
Dan Trabue responded with:
| If Obama or McCain have received illegal donations of any sort (including foreign donors), that should be corrected. Do you have a source?
Here's a couple of other contribution notes for consideration:
1. Obama has accepted more than $400,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
2. McCain's campaign has received $1.33 million from individuals employed in the oil and gas industry.
source |
Perri Nelson responded with: Oil and gas industry donations
| I see nothing whatsoever wrong with a candidate accepting donations from any legal source, including employees of the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry are vital to our nation's economy. Without the energy to run industry, industry ceases to produce. Without the products of industry, we have nothing to buy and sell. With nothing to buy and sell we have no economy. As for a source regarding illegal foreign contributions to Obama's campaign, I refer you to this... Obama received campaign contributions from Gaza Palestinians as one example. In this particular case, the funds were returned to the donors, but there still remain questions about how much of the massive foreign contributions he has received were from U.S. Citizens (legal foreign donations) vs. Non-U.S. Citizens (illegal foreign donations). The Obama camp is so far unwilling to open their records for scrutiny on this issue. |
Dan Trabue responded with:
| I see nothing whatsoever wrong with a candidate accepting donations from any legal source
So, then, you're okay with Obama's receiving money from FMFM? As long as there's no evidence of buying of favors?
Me, too. |
Dan Trabue responded with:
| RE: Obama receiving money from Palestinians (according to WND) - Do you have any more credible sources?
I've done a google search for it and all I can find are "reports" from blogs (rightwing) and "news" groups like WND - a source that I have seen report too many blatant half-truths mistruths to consider reliable, so I would have to see something a bit more reliable before I could form an opinion. |
Perri Nelson responded with:
| Yes, I'm not against his receiving money from Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac, providing there's no evidence of his giving favors in exchange. However, if you're going to talk about “bought” politicians, perhaps those donations to a sitting senator with the ability to vote on new regulations for those bodies (regulations he voted against) then perhaps those donations should be examined. They were donations from lobbyists after all, and not ordinary employees of the businesses. However, if we're going to start impugning sources, We might as well eliminate every major news source. NBC has been knows to deliberately falsify reports in the past to make a point, such as deliberately blowing up GM pickup trucks to leave viewers with the impression that they were dangerously likely to explode in a collision. CBS produced the “fake but accurate” reports about President Bush's National Guard service. MSNBC's Chris Matthews is so in the tank for Obama that he get's a “thrill” up his leg whenever the man speaks. We needn't even mention Fox, which the left seems to think is biased to the right so far as to be unreliable. The Associated Press has to resort to non-existent reporters, mad-up sources and PhotoShop to produce stories about Iraq. Heck, most of the major media had to be scooped by the National Enquirer before they'd even bother to report on John Edward's affair. We could go to the news papers like the New York Times, but they're not exactly objective anymore either. If you'll recall, I also mentioned that Obama gave back the money in question in that particular case. The Associated Press reported on that. See Obama returned cash to Gaza donors. The Wall Street Journal also reported on his giving back $33,500 to the Gaza donors. The problem with this is, the Palestinian donors in question deny that Obama returned the illegal donations. This leaves us with the question, regarding honesty and integrity, did Obama receive the donations or not (there appears to be evidence that he did), and did he return the money (he claims he did, as do some reporters), or did he lie about it (as the donors claim)? Now you have multiple sources for the story. Pick one, or impugn them all. |
Dan Trabue responded with:
| However, if we're going to start impugning sources, We might as well eliminate every major news source.
WND is not a "major news source." It is a right wing news source, a bit like Daily Kos is a news source (except I'm not sure that Daily Kos pretends to be a news source).
CNN, Fox News, ABC, etc, these are legitimate news sources that all have varying degrees of bias (impossible to eliminate), but which generally report news that is in the ballpark of reality.
WND does not and is not.
It's fine for what it is (a right wing news source, delivered with an obvious right wing tilt and fairly consistently containing mistruths to prop up a right wing agenda), but it is not a legitimate news source.
To say this is not to impugn WND, but merely to state what it is. Do you disagree? |
Dan Trabue responded with:
| The Associated Press reported on that. See Obama returned cash to Gaza donors. The Wall Street Journal also reported on his giving back $33,500 to the Gaza donors.
Your AP link took me to a Jewish organization with which I am not familiar. Your WSJ link took me to a WSJ blog page, which I'm not sure indicates that they reported on it in their paper, but that this blogger wrote about.
I'm not saying it didn't happen. I remember reading something about it - basically what you report (that two brothers tried and successfully purchased a bunch of shirts from Obama and when it was discovered that they were not US citizens, the money was returned - end of story, as I recall).
But that's just a loose memory. If there's more to the story, I'd like to see some more serious documentation, that's all I'm saying. |
Dan Trabue responded with:
| That's not any different than my questioning a Daily Kos report on some point - it may strike me as generally true, but that does not mean that I would accept the Daily Kos as a fully reliable source on which I'd base a position. |
David responded with:
 | "I expect that some of my reasons FOR these two candidates might be used as reasons AGAINST them by their opponents (and even their supporters)."
And indeed, although I will cast my vote for Palin and McWhatsisname, I do consider some of the points you mention--as well as some others--as marks against McWhatsisname, as you now.
As to the litany of reasons to vote for Obama cited by a commenter, I challenged a twenty-something Obama supporter I met in TRW to note actual accomplishments to back up some of those "reasons to vote for Obama" and... *crickets chirping* until... Oh! That's right: he's run a campaign for president.
Community organizer! Why, he made a great sacrifice taking a $12,000/year job right out of college to help the downtrodden (in Dreams from My Father, Obama said that he made $12,000 plus a $2,000 car stipend). Except that the $12,000/year was the 3-month probationary/training salary rate that preceded his boost to $20,000. Toward the end of his three year stint, he was making about $35,000. Now, I'm not saying that making money is bad, but Obama consistently lowballs what he made as a community organizer as a way of puffing up his "sacrifice". Heck, even at the lowball $14,000 ($12,000+$2,000 car allowance), his salary in the early '80s would be about $28,000 in today's money, and the $35,000 he was making three years later would equal nearly $70,000. Not bad for a kid straight out of college going into private social work. (The young Obama supporter I mentioned these cozy lil facts to has a masters in sociology, is a state-certified social worker and is working for a private social services agency at less than the equivalent of Obama's starting, probationary salary.)
Some sacrifice. And what did Obama--then--say he accomplished as a community organizer? Well, according to Jerry Kellman, who apparently remembers Obama's exit interview, zip. (Jerry Kellman, to be sure, disagrees with Obama's self-assessment and now points to ONE accomplishment as having been worthwhile... )
As to inspirational speaking: *pfui* I asked my 20-something young acquaintance for some content from Obama's inspirational speaking and... *crickets chirping* I get the same response from everyone I ask for actual meat from Obama's cotton candy.
Energy inependence? Nothing (that's a big zero with the rim kicked off) Obama has said can lead to energy independence. I'd be happy to argue that one on off Perri's dime, but again: there's no meat to anything Obama has said about energy independence. There's certainly no plan to his "plan".
And so it goes. At least there are some reasons to vote for McWhatsisname. Sarah Palin, for one. Heck, she has more positive accomplishments in her little finger than Obama has in his whole existence.
And so it goes. Some see as qualifiers Obama's ability to speak almost as well as a subliterate piney woods preacher boy*, his ability to stonewall and lie about his past, and yeh, the color of his skin. I don't see second class oratory, Chicago politics as usual and blatant racism as valid reasons to vote for any candidate, let alone a presidential candidate, but some folks differ.
(*That's not a slur on subliterate piney woods preacher boys, except in that most of that class I've heard speak are far more eloquent, inspiring and persuasive than any of the drivel I've heard from Obama, and so placing that class juxtaposition to Obama does constitute a slur of sorts on subliterate piney woods preacher boys. The simple fact that Obama is considered by many to be an eloquent and persuasive speaker is proof positive that our society as a whole is sliding into a dark age of cultural illiteracy. For good examples of political speech, see instead examples from the past among many, many other examples in recent history. And yes, 150 years is recent history, although, in my experience, one would not be able to tell it from listening to the typical Obama supporter speak.) |
Chad Everson responded with: Great Post! Hey you need to get Grizzly!
 | I was just talking with Leslie Graves and she suggested that I take a look at your blog! I am impressed! She suggested that I contact you and let you know about the GrizzlyGroundswell.com network! Email me if you get a chance or call 763-244-3265
grizzlygroundswell@chadeverson.com
Chad Everson |